cannot be snookered by cushion

[The Statman]

As, in a touching ball situation, your not allowed to move the touching ball, (Becuase its a push shot) then, if you had three touching balls, it's possible to be snookered on all reds, by the reds!

Well, not quite – you would not be 'snookered'. You are deemed already to have hit the three reds so you cannot be snookered on them. What if they were the only three reds left? What would you be snookered on?!

The foul would be a push shot, not a failure to hit the ball, which would be the case if you were snookered.

[Lee Vilenski]

It would still be imposible to get out of though...

[The Statman]

It would still be imposible to get out of though...

It would be impossible not to foul, indeed.

[Ginger Freak]

What about if a ball was to leave the table an run along the railings, then re-join the table and hit the ball on? I understand this would be legal, but what if you were snookered from the ball on, wouldn't this count as a jump shot?

[Lee Vilenski]

hmmm. I thought you were only able to leave the table after you had hit thew ball..

[The Statman]

What about if a ball was to leave the table an run along the railings, then re-join the table and hit the ball on? I understand this would be legal, but what if you were snookered from the ball on, wouldn't this count as a jump shot?

It would not count aas a jump shot unless it passed over part of a ball. So in the situation you describe that is a fair shot.

[Lee Vilenski]

So, in that case, you could scuff a shot, hit an audience member () land back on the table and then pot the ball, this is still fair?

[The Statman]

So, in that case, you could scuff a shot, hit an audience member () land back on the table and then pot the ball, this is still fair?

No, afraid not. If a ball is disturbed by anything other than the striker, the referee will replace it or put it where he judges it would have landed. The audience here would count as that foreign object, and I expect the referee would adjudge that the ball would have landed on the floor had it not been interrupted by the hapless spectator.

[Ginger Freak]

It would not count aas a jump shot unless it passed over part of a ball. So in the situation you describe that is a fair shot.

Sounds like that would be the only way of getting out of a 'perfect' snooker!

[Lee Vilenski]

No, afraid not. If a ball is disturbed by anything other than the striker, the referee will replace it or put it where he judges it would have landed. The audience here would count as that foreign object, and I expect the referee would adjudge that the ball would have landed on the floor had it not been interrupted by the hapless spectator.

Ow, Damn, I was going to try that!

[DawRef]

OK. Is this then a 'fair' stroke?

Cue-ball jammed in jaws of a corner pocket. Object ball in the jaws of the middle pocket on same side as that of cue-ball. There are no other balls along that cushion or within 1 ft of that cushion (or pockets).
Player manages to 'jump' the cue-ball onto the rail, where it travels along the rail, hits the object ball, which drops into the pocket, and the cue-ball ends up back on the bed of the table.

[Lee Vilenski]

I believe that was just asked and the answer is yes....

[The Statman]

OK. Is this then a 'fair' stroke?

Cue-ball jammed in jaws of a corner pocket. Object ball in the jaws of the middle pocket on same side as that of cue-ball. There are no other balls along that cushion or within 1 ft of that cushion (or pockets).
Player manages to 'jump' the cue-ball onto the rail, where it travels along the rail, hits the object ball, which drops into the pocket, and the cue-ball ends up back on the bed of the table.

Yes that is a fair stroke, as long as the cue-ball isn't judged to have 'jumped' over the red, i.e. hit it more or less across the top and landed on what would be considered the far side of it.

That would make it a jump shot, but only the jump would constitute a foul; the route of the cue-ball would be entirely fair.

[DawRef]

I guessed as much, and if I was reffing a frame and the player tried this, I would have to watch very carefully to make sure the object ball dropped in the pocket, before the cue ball landed back on the table (I'm sure that the cue-ball cannot land back on the table without passing over some part of the object ball).

I might try it down my club.

[Joe99]

While rule 19 of section 2 explains fairly clearly what constitutes a "jump shot", in a complex "3-dimensional" collision it may not be possible to be certain exactly what happened, even if a video replay is available.

While imagining unusual situations can provide a good source of material for interesting discussions, in practice all that can be done is to let the referee make a decision based on how he saw it.

In some sports, there is a "benefit of the doubt" rule to make the ref's job a little easier. Is there any such guideline in snooker?